The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. ED CV 21-460-DMG (SHKx) Date March 17, 2021
Title Joni Gruel v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., et al. Page 1 of 2
Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
KANE TIEN NOT REPORTED
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present None Present
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE
SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT
On August 6, 2020, Plaintiff Joni Gruel filed a Complaint in Riverside County Superior
Court against Defendants Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and Inspire Brands, alleging premises
liability and negligence. [Doc. # 1-1.] On January 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the
Complaint naming Defendant Blazin Wings, Inc. as another Defendant. [Doc. # 1-2.]
On March 15, 2021, Blazin Wings filed a Notice of Removal, asserting it first received
notice that the amount-in-controversy exceeded $75,000 in a written communication from
Plaintiff on February 13, 2021, and that diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. section
1332. Not. of Removal at ¶¶ 5-6 [Doc. # 1]. The Notice of Removal does not mention whether
any other Defendants have been served and their position on removal of the action.
Under 28 U.S.C. section 1441, when removal is based on the Court’s original
jurisdiction, “all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to
the removal of the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2)(A). “[A] party seeking to remove a case to
federal court has the burden of proving that all the requirements of removal have been met. That
burden goes not only to the issue of federal jurisdiction, but also to questions of compliance with
statutes governing the exercise of the right of removal.” See Parker v. Brown, 570 F. Supp. 640,
642 (S.D. Ohio 1983); accord Riggs v. Plaid Pantries, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1264 (D. Or.
2001). It is not clear whether Buffalo Wild Wings and Inspire Brands have been served, and if
they have been, Blazin Wings has not explained why removal is proper even though the other
Defendants did not join in the removal notice or otherwise indicate their consent to the removal
of this action.
Accordingly, because it is not clear that the removal is procedurally proper, Blazin Wings
is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be remanded to Riverside
County Superior Court for improper removal. Blazin Wings shall file a response by no later than
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. ED CV 21-460-DMG (SHKx) Date March 17, 2021
Title Joni Gruel v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., et al. Page 2 of 2
March 25, 2021. Failure to timely file a satisfactory response by this deadline will result in the
remand of this action to state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.